UV filters are always good just for protection.
If you don't have lens hoods then your money would be better spent buying those.ok so should I get some to protect my lenses or not whats the vote on that one !!
ok so should I get some to protect my lenses or not whats the vote on that one !!
Personally, I do have UV filters on all of my lenses.
However, I am beginning to think that I will remove them for important events, where I can be more comfortable that grit won't be blown in, or fingers on the front etc.
I have found, that as I have bought cheap(er) filters, that it has possibly effected the quality of some of the shots I am taking, especially when I have had to zoom/crop to get 'closer' to small birds. I cannot prove this, as usually I cannot see a difference until back at the computer, at which point it is not possible to test without the filter.
If you are taking shots professionaly, then I am wondering whether there is insurance that could cover the front of the lens being scratched. This would mean that you would require a second lens as backup, but reduces the 'risks' if you shot without a filter.
A UV filter will not protect a lens from being dropped/you tripping for example, where a hood might produce a small crumple-zone
If you are taking shots professionaly, then I am wondering whether there is insurance that could cover the front of the lens being scratched. This would mean that you would require a second lens as backup, but reduces the 'risks' if you shot without a filter.
I disagree.
There are only a very limited number of circumstances where a UV filter will protect a lens any more than a lens hood.
For some people they may be good for protection, but this should be based on intended use rather than a blanket 'Filter for protection is good'.
Personally I have experienced a noticable quality drop when using a good quality filter on a couple of my lenses in the past.
I am wondering whether personal property/household contents insurance would cover a scratch on the front element. For a non-professional, I am wondering whether it would be difficult to argue that the quality of the shots afterwards is poor-enough to prove that the equipment needed repairing.
However, professionally, it might be easier to argue that the damage would reduce the chances of being employed for a job, and thus it is a work-requirement that the damage be repaired.
I am only thinking this way as my contents insurance just came up for renewal. It said I had £5000 cover for anything removed temporarily from the house. However, it also stated that any item over £1000 needed to be specifically named. I phoned up to check that 'photographic' equipment did not count as a single item (all my bits are below £1000 each, but in total...). I was told that this cover did not apply to photographic equipment, as it counted as personal belongings instead. Thus, I was only covered for £1000 in total.
A bit off the point that I know, but the insurance companies have a different classification to personal belongings, and their value to their customers.
I have not investigated a separate equipment insurance yet, it is just if you are not a professional, perhaps it is more difficult to justify it?